1994 PLP 77 (PLC)
AZHAR HUSSAIN Versus M.F.M.Y. INDUSTRIES LTD., KARACHI
| Citation | 1994 PLP 77 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh |
| Bench Members | Agha Ali Hyder, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | AZHAR HUSSAIN Versus M.F.M.Y. INDUSTRIES LTD., KARACHI |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994 PLP 77 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1994 PLP 77 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh bench comprising: Agha Ali Hyder, Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1994 PLP 77 (PLC) (AZHAR HUSSAIN Versus M.F.M.Y. INDUSTRIES LTD., KARACHI). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- S.M. Akhtar Rizvi for Appellant.
- Muhammad Ashraf Khan for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 15th September, 1993.
Headnotes / Summary
Industrial dispute‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑Resignation‑‑‑Denial by employee‑‑‑Proof‑‑‑Employee had contended that he had taken two months' leave as he was not maintaining good health, but on return when he reported for duty, he was not allowed to resume‑‑‑Employer's version in written, reply was that employee had himself resigned‑‑‑Employee on his own showing was seventy years old and was not in good health‑‑‑No proof existed to show that employee had made application for grant of leave or that same was granted by employer‑‑‑Employee denied his signature on his letter of resignation, but his signatures on resignation letter were quite similar to signature on. Form M' (register of workers' attendance)‑‑‑Fact that employee had himself resigned and that proceedings had been initiated by him because of some lack of agreement on his monetary entitlement in wake of his resignation was established‑‑‑Finding of Court that employee had resigned of his own free will and volition, could not be interfered with.
Judgment & Decree
Date of hearing: 15th September, 1993. DECISION This appeal calls in question the order of the Labour Court No. III, Karachi, dismissing the petition filed under section 25‑A of the I.R.O., which arose in the following circumstances:
2. It is alleged that the petitioner, a Boilder Attendant with the respondent not maintaining good health, had taken two months' leave from 3rd July, 1989 and left for Lahore for rest. On turn he had reported for duty on the 3rd September, 1989 but was not allowed to resume. He had therefore, sent a grievance notice and later filed the petition before the Labour Court.
3. The respondents' version in the written reply was that the petitioner had resigned from his job on 17‑6‑1989 and the proceedings instituted against them were simply malicious and blackmailing in nature.
4. The petitioner apart from himself had examined Shamshad Ali, who was the Head Time‑Keeper of the respondent Organisation. The respondents had examined Tauqeer Alam, their Assistant Labour Officer.
5. The Labour Court found that the petitioner had resigned of his own free will and volition and in the circumstances, the grievance petition; as filed, was barred by time. The latter finding, as the matter stood, was rather gratuitous.
6. The salient feature of the case is that the appellant, on his own showing, was seventy years old and was not in good health. It was because of his ill‑health that he had proceeded on leave. However, there was no proof that he had mad: an~ application and what is more that the same was granted. The appellant had stated that he had been assured of the grant of leave by the Head Time‑Keeper, but Shamshad Ali, who had been examined by him, remains absolutely reticent on that score. Instead he mentions in unequivocal terms that the appellant had tendered his resignation.
7. The appellant was confronted with his letter of resignation. He denied his signature thereon. On his own showing he had taken a loan of ten thousand rupees in which connection he had made an application. He denied his signature on this application shown to him. These signatures and the signatures on Form `M', which is the register of workers attendance for the month of May, 1989, seem to tally with the signatures on the resignation letter. However, the signatures of the appellant on the appellate record are in `Urdu', giving no chance of comparison.
8. I agree with the observation of the Labour Court that the attendance card is spurious. The appellant, on his showing, had completed three score years and ten and needed rest. I am satisfied that it was he, who had resigned and the proceedings had been instituted because there seems to be some lack of agreement on his monetary entitlement in the wake of his resignation. It is not necessary to dilate on that aspect of the matter as it is not germane for this case.
9. I will, therefore, affirm the order and dismiss the appeal. H.B.T./2232/Lb.S Appeal dismissed,